The proceedings themselves ended the same day they started on an inconclusive basis, with one of the bishops on the panel that served as a jury having to leave due to a death in the family, which resulted in the loss of a quorum. According to Douglas Bess's account of the circumstances surrounding the trial in Divided We Stand, which I summarized here, the ACC bishops subsequently negotiated a settlement that allowed Falk to leave the ACC with his diocese, and the bishops that left the ACC with him formed the ACA.
The transcript is not clear on the charges that were actually brought against Falk. A Dr Robert Strippy provided a preface to the transcript in which he says the charges were that "he participated in the call for a conference on Continuing Anglican unity, and he received the Holy Communion at a synod of the American Episcopal Church". Since the trial was interrupted and never resumed, this is in fact all the record reflects. What the prosecutors intended to develop based on this is not clear.
Douglas Bess, who apparently had extensive input from ACC sources, said Falk's actual offenses were developing the TAC as a superdenominational body, thus undermining the ACC bishops, and ordaining priests of highly questionable morals, including one who was alleged to be a bigamist. Falk, of course, continues to be a highly controversial figure among the "continuing" movement, and I've had conversations with ACC sources (some of whom may also have talked to Bess) that indicate how much bitterness remains toward him.
My own views on Falk have moderated. In particular, I no longer believe he actually called or e-mailed Anthony Morello to convey a message to David Virtue that he had never offered episcopal guidance to the St Mary of the Angels parish during 2011-12 -- I now believe this was a falsehood concocted by Morello. However, although Falk provided assistance to the parish via phone discussions with police and depositions in the legal proceedings, these were behind the scenes, and my view is that Falk might have been of greater help in public remarks.
But the biggest question that emerges from the transcript is the involvement of ACC Bp James Mote as president of the court. Mote is probably the single most puzzling figure in the "continuing" movement. He was a prime mover in bringing about the 1977 Congress of St Louis and founding the ACC, but Louis Falk, who did not attend the Congress, contacted Mote the following year and, according to a source, offered him his services at that time. According to an ACC source, both Mote and Falk were alumni of Nashotah House, and Mote took this as a recommendation. (Nashotah House alums think well of themselves and each other.) Over the next few years, Falk steadily rose in Mote's estimation and fairly quickly eclipsed Mote in ACC leadership, especially after his 1981 consecration by Mote as ACC Bishop of the Missouri Valley.
Mote's presence a decade later as the president of the court is one of his few subsequent appearances in the record, and he disappears again after the trial was suspended. When I got in touch with Douglas Bess, the issue of what happened with Mote was one of the first questions I raised, and Bess said he had no additional information.
The only additional point of information I get is a prefatory memo from Falk in the trial pamphlet, which notes that the trial took place in a typical hotel meeting room, with typical hotel long tables, on which typical glasses and pitchers of ice water were provided for the participants -- except that Mote had a pitcher of iced tea. My surmise, and possibly the reason Falk noted this, is that it may not have been iced tea but rather "iced tea". Beyond that, who can say?
